Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 365–384 | Cite as

Duty or Dream? Edwin G. Conklin's Critique of Eugenics and Support for American Individualism

  • Kathy J. Cooke
Article

Abstract

This paper assesses ideas about moral andreproductive duty in American eugenics duringthe early twentieth century. While extremeeugenicists, including Charles Davenport andPaul Popenoe, argued that social leaders andbiologists must work to prevent individuals whowere ``unfit'' from reproducing, moderates,especially Edwin G. Conklin, presented adifferent view. Although he was sympathetic toeugenic goals and participated in eugenicorganizations throughout his life, Conklinrealized that eugenic ideas rarely could meetstrict scientific standards of proof. Withthis in mind, he did not restrict his eugenicvision to hereditary measures. Relying onhis experience as an embryologist, Conklininstead attempted to balance more extremeeugenic claims – that emphasized the absolutelimits posed by heredity – with his own view of``the possibilities of development.'' Throughhis critique he argued that most human beingsnever even begin to approach their hereditarypotential; he moderated his own eugenicrhetoric so that it preserved individualopportunity and responsibility, or what hasoften been labeled the American Dream.

American dream Conklin, Edwin G. ethics eugenics individualism morality race betterment race suicide 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, G. E. 1986. “The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910-1940: An Essay in Institutional History.” Osiris, 2nd Series 2: 225–264.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, G. E. 1989. “Eugenics and American Social History, 1880-1950.” Genome 31: 885–889.Google Scholar
  3. Barkan, E. 1991. “Reevaluating Progressive Eugenics: Herbert Spencer Jennings and the 1924 Immigration Legislation.” Journal of the History of Biology 24: 91–112.Google Scholar
  4. Blakeslee, A. F. 1914. “Corn and Men.” Journal of Heredity 5: 511–517.Google Scholar
  5. Brechin, G. 1996. “Conserving the Race: Natural Aristocracies, Eugenics, and the U.S. Conservation Movement.” Antipode 28: 229–245.Google Scholar
  6. Conklin, E. G. 1898. “The Factors of Organic Evolution from the Standpoint of Embryology.” In Footnotes to Evolution: A Series of Popular Addresses on the Evolution of Life, ed. D. S. Jordan. New York: D. Appleton & Company.Google Scholar
  7. ―1908. “Nature and Nurture.” Address before the Philadelphia Teacher's Convention, 21 April 1908. Edwin Grant Conklin Professional Papers, Box 16, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library. Published with Permission of the Princeton University Library.Google Scholar
  8. ―1912. “Problems in Evolution and Present Methods of Attacking Them.” The American Naturalist 66(543): 122–128.Google Scholar
  9. ―1913. “Heredity and Responsibility.” Science 37: 46–54.Google Scholar
  10. ―1915. Heredity and Environment in the Development of Men. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. ―1916. Letter to H.A. Cotton. 4 February 1916. Edwin Grant Conklin Personal Papers, Box 30, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library. Published with Permission of the Princeton University Library.Google Scholar
  12. ―1917. “Fourth of July Address, Woods Hole, MA.” Edwin Grant Conklin Professional Papers, Box 15, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library. Published with Permission of the Princeton University Library.Google Scholar
  13. ―1921. Direction of Human Evolution. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
  14. ―1925. “Science and the Faith of the Modern.” Scribner's Magazine 78: 452.Google Scholar
  15. ―1953. “Spiritual Autobiography.” In Thirteen Americans: Their Spiritual Autobiographies, pp. 47–76. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  16. Cooke, K. J. 1994. An American Gospel of Social Evolution: Religion, Education, and Biology in the Thought of Edwin Grant Conklin. Ph.D. Diss. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. ―1998. “Human Fertility and Differential Birth Rates in American Eugenics and Genetics: A Brief History.” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 65: 161–166.Google Scholar
  18. ―1998. “The Limits of Heredity: Nature and Nurture in American Eugenics before 1915.” Journal of the History of Biology 3: 263–278.Google Scholar
  19. Crevecoeur, J. H. St. John. 1783, 1997. Letters from an American Farmer. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Davenport, C. 1910. “Report of the Committee on Eugenics.” American Breeder's Magazine 1: 128–129.Google Scholar
  21. ―1915. Letter to Edwin G. Conklin. 1 March 1915. Edwin Grant Conklin Personal Papers, Box 6, Davenport Folder, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library. Published with Permission of the Princeton University Library.Google Scholar
  22. Dix, A. S. 1997. “Experiences and Voices of Eugenics Field Workers: 'Women's Work' in Biology.” Social Studies of Science 27: 648–651.Google Scholar
  23. Haller, M. 1963. Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought. Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Huntington, E. 1937. Letter to Livingston Farrand. 1 February 1937. Livingston Farrand Papers, 1921-1939, Collection 3/5/7, Box 1, Division of Rare andManuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.Google Scholar
  25. Jennings, H. S. 1910. “Experimental Evidence of the Effectiveness of Selection.” American Naturalist 44: 136–145.Google Scholar
  26. ―1917. “The Biology of Children.” In Suggestions of Modern Science Concerning Education, eds. H. S. Jennings et al. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Kerber, L. 1976. “The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment — An American Perspective.” American Quarterly 28: 187–205.Google Scholar
  28. Kevles, D. J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  29. Kline, W. 2001. Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ludmerer, K. M. 1972. Genetics and American Society. Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Paul, D. B. 1995. Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pauly, P. J. 1993. “Essay Review: The Eugenics Industry — Growth or Restructuring.” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 131–145Google Scholar
  33. Pernick, M. S. 1995. The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of “Defective” Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures since 1915. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pickens, D. K. 1968. Eugenics and the Progressives. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Popenoe, P. and R. H. Johnson. 1918. Applied Eugenics. New York: Macmillan, 1918.Google Scholar
  36. “Preachers and Eugenics.” 1914. American Breeder's Magazine 4: 63–64.Google Scholar
  37. “Report of the Committee on Eugenics.” 1910. American Breeder's Magazine 1: 129.Google Scholar
  38. Richards, E. H. 1909. Letter to Miss Boggs. 2 December 1909, Special Collections, Vassar College Libraries.Google Scholar
  39. ―1910. Euthenics, the Science of Controllable Environment; a Plea for Better Living Conditions as a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency. Boston: Whitcomb & Barrows.Google Scholar
  40. Saleeby, C. W. 1909. Parenthood and Race Culture: An Outline of Eugenics. New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.Google Scholar
  41. Seelye, J. 1965. “Who was Horatio? The Alger Myth and American Scholarship.” American Quarterly 17: 749–756.Google Scholar
  42. Spencer, H. G. and D. B. Paul. 1998. “The Failure of a Scientific Critique: David Heron, Karl Pearson and Mendelian Genetics.” British Journal for the History of Science 31: 441–452.Google Scholar
  43. Stern, A. 2002. “Making Better Babies: Public Health and Race Betterment in Indiana, 1920-1935.” American Journal of Public Health 92: 742–752.Google Scholar
  44. Stolba, C. A. 1999. A Corrupt Tree Bringeth Forth Evil Fruit: Religion and the American Eugenics Movement. Ph.D. Diss., Emory University.Google Scholar
  45. Van Rensselaer, M. 1911. Letter to Mary G. Hay. 21 December 1911. New York State College of Home Economics Records, 1875-1970, Collection 23/2/749, Box 14, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.Google Scholar
  46. ―1913. Letter to Vida Hunt Francis. 6 November 1913. New York State College of Home Economics Records, 1875-1970, Collection 23/2/749, Box 13, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.Google Scholar
  47. Vincenti, V. B. 1981. A History of the Philosophy of Home Economics. Thesis (Ph.D.) — Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  48. Weigley, E. S. 1974. “It Might Have Been Euthenics: The Lake Placid Conferences and the Home Economics Movement.” American Quarterly 26: 79–96.Google Scholar
  49. Zagarri, R. 1992. “Morals, Manners, and the Republican Mother.” American Quarterly 44: 192–215.Google Scholar
  50. Zenderland, L. 1998. “Biblical Biology: American Protestant Social Reformers and the Early Eugenics Movement.” Science in Context 11: 511–525.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathy J. Cooke
    • 1
  1. 1.Quinnipiac UniversityHamdenUSA

Personalised recommendations